Whether the added expenditure for RF shielding is worthwhile depends on
numerous factors, such as the electrode and amplifier system you are
using, the type of responses you are interested in recording, and the
larger EMF environment. In general, I would agree that most labs
recording cognitive potentials (which are relatively large) run without
it. However, this is in most cases based on a cost-benefit analysis
rather than a decision that RF shielding is generally unnecessary. If
your lab is situated near large air conditioning units, fans, other
appliances emitting significant EMF or major electrical conduits, then
shielding is something you may want to consider. In addition, if you
plan to do any animal research that might involve intraoperative or
intracortical recording, then you really ought to make the investment.
Gerry
Gerry A. Stefanatos, D. Phil.
Director, Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory
Moss Rehab Research Institute
Albert Einstein Medical Center
1200 W. Tabor Rd.
Philadelphia, PA 19141
Tel: (215) 456-5962
Fax: (215) 456-5926
>>> Annabel Cohen <acohen@xxxxxxx> 07/27/05 11:44AM >>>
Hi members of the Auditory List:
We are planning to obtain a double-walled sound-attenuated room
for psychoacoustic research, including both auditory localization
and evoked-potential recording.
Does anyone have opinions regarding the value of RF-shielding
which is an option for the room? The manufacturer of the evoked-
potential equipment suggests that there will be little gain from RF-
shielding and that most labs run without it. I'd be interested in any
views about this.
Also, are there other benefits of RF shielding that could be brought
to my attention? We will also use the room for more general
perceptual-cognitive research. The sound-attenuated room itself will
be installed in a room housing other computer and media
equipment and likely in the vicinity of a computer lab.
Thanks for any advice.
Annabel Cohen
Department of Psychology
University of Prince Edward Island
Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3